In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).

In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks! There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of 9/11 that are most likely true. The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.

Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

We then move on to talk about David’s his new DVD “9/11 Analysis” which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased here.

From the site:

“The 9/11 Analysis DVD project is a compilation of the many short analysis videos David Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few years, woven together with an interpretive narrative. The current release is in English, but the plan is to follow this with a multilingual release. We need to raise funds to cover the production costs to make Phase II a reality. Please order your copy now and/or help out with a donation.”

In the second part of this frank and informative interview David talks about his strong stance on the Pentagon fiasco that is now threatening the whole credible body of 9-11 research. The aggressive nature of the advocates of “no plane hit the Pentagon” has lead to a situation that is already out of control as has been seen by Ventura’s terrible error of judgement with his episode of “Conspiracy Theory” for True TV on this subject. The case made by David for us not to be seen as a “Pentagon Movement” for it could mean our destruction is the best I’ve heard to date!

For David’s analysis of the Pentagon Debate please see his and Jon Cole’s web page dedicated to the issue:
http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

Here is an exert: “The Honey Pot – On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at
all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”

NOTE: You may have seen or heard on the net that CIT has said that I John Bursill made a commitment to them to leave this issue alone in a discussion had with Craig Ranke, this is true. I changed my mind many months back after the work Dr Frank Legge was doing around the Digital Flight Data Recorder data re-analysis of which I was involved. This and the aggressive moves by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the “fly over” was a proven fact has forced me back to this issue. I apologise for my back flip but I feel it is that important that I speak out and support those that do the same for the survival of the 9/11 Truth Movements credibility.

An In Depth Interview with Bob McIlvaine – Visibility 9-11

Notes by John Bursill

In this in depth interview with tireless 9/11 Truth campaigner Bob McIlvaine, we look at 9/11 in its historical context. We also hear about Bob’s detailed research into what happened to his son Bobby on 9/11 and the evidence an explosion other than the planes killed his son.

As a long term 9/11 Truth researcher (2001) , an ex-history teacher and someone who has worked in mental health, Bob has a unique perspective on society and it’s drives. In this interview Bob gives us a insight into how he sees the world and it’s working’s and why 9/11 Truth should be seen as possibly the best chance we’ve had at bringing peace to our world. Bob believes that we may have already been successful at preventing other wars with our exposure of the 9/11 fraud; I totally agree.

Bob says he is “always ready to go!” when he is called to speak about the 9/11 tragedy and uses every opportunity to educate the population about the lies they have been told and to celebrate his sons short but exceptional life. Thank you Bob for your tenacity, drive and absolute commitment to expose the criminal’s responsible for your sons death and all those that perished on that terrible day. You are a great inspiration for us all!

About Bob: Bob Mcilvaine is the father of Bobby McIlvaine, a victim from the 9/11 attacks. Bobby graduated from Princeton University, and managed to get a job at Merrill Lynch as “Assistant Vice President For Media Relations.” He was also engaged to be married for a 2002 wedding. On 9/11/2001, he was on his way to banking conference on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center North Tower, and was killed as a result of what happened that day. From the evidence Bob has gathered it is apparent he was killed by an explosion, likely in the lobby. Bob has been one of the most outspoken 9/11 Family Members with regards to seeking truth, accountability, and justice for what happened that day. He is one of the family members that attended every 9/11 Commission hearing and has attended numerous 9/11 truth conferences around the world. He has appeared in several TV, radio, and newspaper interviews, as well as the documentary, 9/11: Press For Truth.

Despite the 9-11 Commission’s mandate to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, many key points were omitted from the final report. One of these important omissions attempted to cover up the role of Pakistan and whether or not Pakistani intelligence helped to fund the 9-11 attacks.

Ties between Washington DC and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI have been documented in media reports before and after the September 11th attacks. In March 2001, Pakistani regional expert and member of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Selig Harrisson, said “the CIA still has close links with the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.” Just one day before the attacks, a Pakistani newspaper in Islamabad reported that the head of the ISI was meeting with unspecified members of the Pentagon, National Security Council, and CIA Director George Tenet.

“On the morning of Sept. 11, Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.”

Specific details of that meeting have still not been released and may never have been recorded.

In 2001, various media outlets (CNN, Fox News, ABC, and AP) reported that $100,000 was wired from Pakistan to Mohammed Atta, the 9-11 lead hijacker. A “senior law enforcement source” told CNN that the paymaster was believed to be Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was working for the Pakistani ISI at the time.

Several media outlets reported in 2002 that the US government believed Saeed Sheikh to be an asset of the ISI, and that senior ISI officers knew him well. Also reported was the allegation by Indian intelligence that General Mahmud Ahmed ordered the wire transfer and that Indian intelligence claimed they had assisted the FBI during the investigation. Various mainstream Indian papers reported this in 2001 along with a mainstream Pakistani newspaper. In the West – the Wall Street Journal and Agence France Press picked up on the story in October.

On October 7th 2001, Mahmud Ahmed was fired from his role at the ISI. The official explanation was because he was too close to the Taliban. This claim has been met with criticism by some analysts given the fact that there were several pro-Taliban officers that kept their jobs.

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Family Steering Committee asked the Commissioners to investigate the ISI connection. However, the commission did little to “follow the money” and the 9/11 Commission Report made no mention of these allegations. Furthermore, the commission made the absurd statement that the question of who financed the terrorist attacks was “of little practical significance” [and that it had] “seen no evidence that any foreign government–or foreign government official–supplied any funding.”

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

Most people don’t realize that on September 11th, planes were known to be high jacked and flying around the Eastern US for over 70 minutes. After September 11th, many wondered why the United States Air Force was unable to stop the high jacked aircraft, especially American Airlines Flight 77 which struck the Pentagon. American Airlines Flight 11 was high jacked at 8:14 am. By 8:25 Boston air traffic controllers confirmed that the flight was indeed high jacked and the aircraft struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46. At 9:03, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower and at that time, the whole world knew that America was under attack. It was not until 9:37 that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Therefore, it was a full hour and 10 minutes between the times the FAA knew that Flight 11 was high jacked and the time Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. How could this happen? The area around the Pentagon and Washington D.C. is some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world. This fact led many to believe there had to be a stand down order issued which would have prevented Standard Operating Procedures from allowing these aircraft to be intercepted or possibly shot down. A stand-down is defined as “a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert”. This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11.

One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar. As stated by the 9/11 Commission, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns without the transponder. However, unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude.

The 9-11 commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal. In 2006 a golf ball was hit off the International Space Station. New Scientist magazine reported that the ball was too small to be tracked by ground radar, but noted that,

“US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimeters across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 centimeters wide if it is in just the right orbit.”

There are 35 USAF bases within range of the 9/11 flights, which included the restricted airspace surrounding the Pentagon, Capitol Hill and the White House. It is hard to believe that a military which possesses such a highly-sophisticated radar system would not have been able to track the high jacked aircraft without a transponder signal.

Commercial airliners do not need their transponders turned on in order to be tracked by the US military. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the US military lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal.

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of the military response to the attacks while the President flew around the country in Air Force One. The 9-11 Commission failed to follow up on the nature of and order the Vice President had given which related to American Airlines Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon at 9:36. Many have wondered if these orders were NOT to shoot down Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon.

We know about this order because on May 23, 2003, then Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9-11 Commission. Secretary Mineta testified that he was present at the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) in a bunker below the White House on the morning of September 11th under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney. During questioning by Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Mineta was asked if he was in the PEOC when the Presidential order was given to shoot down suspected hijacked commercial airliners.

During the time that Secretary Mineta testified about, Flight 77 had already been severely off course for over an hour and it was thought that the flight was being controlled by terrorists. Flight 77 was also being tracked by the FAA and NORAD and according to Secretary Mineta’s testimony it was even being tracked for at least 50 miles from the PEOC.

Secretary Mineta’s testimony has raised many questions. The most obvious question is, what were the orders that Vice-President Cheney had issued to the young man? When asked by Mr. Hamilton during testimony if the order was a shoot down order, Secretary Mineta could not confirm that it was. Is it reasonable to assume that this was a shoot down order?

During this same hearing, Secretary Mineta also testified that aircraft had been scrambled from nearby Langley Air Force Base and were only 10 miles away from the Washington D.C. area. If the orders Secretary Mineta spoke of was a shoot down order, then why was this plane not shot down before it hit the Pentagon? Our modern fighters are the most sophisticated in the world and can shoot down multiple targets from many miles away. The question begs to be asked, were these orders the young man spoke of orders NOT to shoot down Flight 77?

We now know that Naval Officer Douglas F. Cochrane is the young man Mineta was referring to in his testimony. When questioned about the day, Mr. Cochrane has refused to answer questions about what happened and repeatedly refers to the 9-11 Commission as the definitive report on the terrorist attacks.

It is another failure of the 9-11 Commission that this testimony by Secretary Mineta was not followed up on. Today, important questions still persist about what these orders were and why the 9-11 Commission failed to dig deeper and ask questions of how Flight 77 could have possibly been allowed to strike the heart of the US Military.

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

The Bush administration fought hard against the creation of an independent commission to investigate September 11th. The families who fought for the creation of such a commission, wanted full accountability concerning the event that led to the deaths of their loved ones. Yet, the Bush administration resisted this. Why?

“…would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism”.

On May 23rd 2002, CBS reported that,

“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.”

The excuses for the opposition to the Commission often given were alleged fears of national security compromises and claims that those involved in the “war on terrorism” would have their jobs hampered. Yet, clearly national security had already been compromised as a result of the attacks. If there were such failings and if people did not do their jobs, then they needed to be held accountable.

In September 2002, under pressure from victims’ family members, CBS reported,

“President Bush told Congress he now supports creation of an independent commission to probe the September eleventh attacks.”

The victims’ families “fought the Bush administration tooth and nail for a commission to investigate the September 11th terrorist attacks — and won”. Yet, why did they even have to fight them for an investigation in the first place?

During the 9/11 Commission hearings – the Family Steering Committee requested Commissioners to ask Bush and Cheney to,

“explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation”.

Yet, no answer is forthcoming.

The Bush administration actively opposed any formal investigation into the attacks of September 11th. If it were not for the determination of victims’ family members and a budding 9-11 Truth Movement, there would have never been any inquiry beyond the heavily redacted Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry from 2002. Why did President Bush not want the American public to know exactly what happened before, during, and after the September 11th attacks?

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

To many the name Kevin Bracken is a new one in regards 9/11 Truth. The reality is that Kevin has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth cause since 2006 by disseminating information throughout the Victorian Union Movement and the Maritime Workers Union of Australia. He has distributed DVD’s, shown films and shared information regularly with his associates and the people of Melbourne and he achieved motions calling for a new investigation from both the Victorian Trades Hall Council where he is the President and the Victorian branch of the Maritime Union of Australia of which he heads as Secretary. Kevin has also attended numerous conferences on 9/11 and has been the facilitator of such in Melbourne, Australia. Over the years Kevin and I have developed a close working relationship, both striving for the truth 9/11 to come out to bring end to the wars and to get our rights back that have been eroded since 9/11!

This is the motion passed on the 28th of March of 2008 at the VTHC;

“That this meeting of VTHC Executive Council calls for a thorough, independent enquiry into the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11.

The events of that day have been used to start pre-emptive wars “that will not end in our lifetime”. They have been used to attack civil liberties and legal principles that have been the cornerstone of civilized communities.

There is an urgent need to reassess the way we view the world after September 11 and we call for proper investigation into the events around that day.

On the 20th of October 2010 Kevin was asked to ring into ABC 774 Mornings with John Faine although Faine disputes this. This was following an email that was sent to Faine by Kevin questioning 9/11 in the context of Australia’s ongoing support of the Afghanistan occupation. After the recent Australian Election it was demanded by the Australian Greens in a “balance of power” deal that the Australian involvement in the Afghan War be debated in parliament in it’s first sitting. This debate had been going on this week and it was the first time any such debate had happened since 9/11, which is simply outrageous.

This interview by Faine was possibly the most biased ever heard in Australia on radio broadcast by the tax payer funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This attack by Faine of Bracken’s questioning the 9/11 events included a torrent of ad hominem slurs and an absolute refusal to discuss any evidence that the events were anything but what we have been told by our governments. A reasonable explanation of what happened and also with attached audio can be found here. This story titled “Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken Stands by his 9/11 Conspiracy” has been reported all around the world and included a poll which started off running at around 50/50 asking if Kevin’s questions about 9/11 were “reasonable” but has continued to move in his favour ending up at the time of writing these notes at 75% in favour of Bracken.

Kevin has received literally thousands of thank you’s from around the world for his brave stance for 9/11 Truth! Standing his ground even after being directly verbally bashed by the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard saying he was “stupid and wrong” and having his own leadership comrades buckle at the knees if the face of unfounded ridicule. Rather than running for cover Kevin with his chin in the air has reiterated his position defying any to debate him on the issue! As usual all media presstitutes have refused, as there is obviously “no debate to have”. It seems that the vast majority of the public disagree and would like to see such a debate but none of the so called “journalists” dare to tread such a path.

Interesting to note that John Faine is now complaining that the ABC has been swamped by 9/11 activists and it may take the ABC many weeks to deal with the massive amount of complaints and comments they have received. Many of these I know to be formal as I have received many courtesy copies of the complaints to the ABC accusing them of breeching their charter and broadcast policy.

The battle for 9/11 Truth is far from over and as long as the fools in power maintain their policy of occupation of Afghanistan they will remain exposed and at risk of criminal prosecution due to the lies of 9/11. Lets hope it comes soon or they realize and stop the bloodshed.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

“It appeared to both of us that the [9-11] commission was set up to fail”.

In an interview with the CBC, Lee Hamilton said he thought they were “reasonably successful in telling the story,” although he also acknowledged, “I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right.” However, that the Commission was set up to fail at all is a big Red Flag. Why was the Commission set up to fail, and who did it?

Kean and Hamilton, in the first chapter of the book titled, “Set Up to Fail,” explain their reason for thinking this.

1) The late establishment and start of the commission itself. In fact, it took 441 days after the attacks and a Congressional mandate to force the Bush administration into a formal investigation.
2) There were numerous complications in obtaining security clearances for Commissioners and staff.
3) There was a deadline for completion which did not allow the proper time to fulfill their mandate.
4) The commission wasseverely underfunded. Only $3 million dollars was initially allocated, though two months later the Bush Administration reluctantly increased the total to $12 million.
5) The commission had restricted access to important documents and witnesses. According to Hamilton, “… we were fighting the question of access right up to the end of the Commission’s work.”
6) False testimony was given by NORAD officials, and
7) The commission encountered obstruction by the CIA, and possibly the White House, over access to prisoners accused of having a role in the 9/11 plot.

One might reasonably ask; if they’ve got nothing to hide, why are they acting as if they do? When Hamilton was asked by the CBC interviewer about why he thought they were set up to fail, he laughed, and said, “I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign.”

The 9-11 Commission was mandated by law to “provide a full and complete accounting” of the tragic events of September 11th. How on earth were they able to carry out this mandate if they were “set up to fail”? The answer is, they couldn’t.

To listen to this 9-11 Red Flag, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.